Labour refuse to make pledge not to raise tuition fees

[Technologic]

I would agree with you to an extent, i've been banging on about the state of national finances year on year.

But as I said above, the debt isn't actually going to go down - it's still due to increase over the lifetime of this parliament, government expenditure is actually due to increase yet again. To add to that, tuition fees are irrelevant to the national debt while we increase the likes of the foreign aid budget by 37%. So all they are doing is using something [the debt] which they aren't actually going to do anything serious about, to milk the taxpayer more.

The tactic of fear is the best tactic politicians use, people need to be aware of what politicians say and what politicians actually do.

I'm sure you would know all about the tactic of fear as it seems to be UKIPs main political tool, no?

[Catzsy]

Because people like yourself keep harping on about tuition fees and how they are oh so terrible, but still support the party which has just as bad a record (if not worse) than the other two who also broke their policies.

I pay tuition fees but tripling them is totally out of order. Some contribution is fine.

Given their massive increases in taxation and so forth over the past decade, what reason would you have for believing they would not increase fees after the election? that's right, you have no reason to believe they wouldn't have introduced these rises in fees - other than blinded faith.

Because they had no plans to cut University fund by 80% which is the reason for tuition fees.

Oh what utter rubbish. Absolute nonsense, they voted against the plans to hoover up disaffected Liberal Democrat votes and student votes, and if you don't think otherwise then you are being naive.

What evidence have you for this? Absolutely none. Why would they want
disaffected lib dem votes? If you actually listen to Ed Milliband he said it was a BAD DECISION taken by the coalition.

As for the debt, the debt is due to continue rising under this government and i've no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued to rise under the Labour government had they had won the general election, especially considering they created the bulk of that debt in the first place. Tuition fees are nothing in terms of the debt, maybe start looking at the £18bn+ a year climate change bill, the £10bn+ a year EU costs and the £10bn+ a year foreign aid packages and you'll start getting somewhere.

Your opinion not based on any substance or fact or supported by any person of note. It is universally accepted by all that the banking crisis caused the debt. Yes they are a more state based party and do spend more because that is their priority. What about the 70 billion owed in tax evasion. Any opinion on why that is not going to be persued with vigour?

But you voted for the three examples i've given above and as did the millions of others who voted Lib/Lab/Con - the money need to come from somewhere, and if you want a big state and a big government (as you've said in the past) then you will find that there are immense bills to pay which the poorest will have to pay as there simply are not enough rich people to foot the bill.


WMD lies, climate change lies, Lisbon Treaty lies.. spin spin spin and the same goes for the Tory Party. Now see I may not agree with them, but what my point is is the fact that you are voting for a party that is just as bad as the one you are many others are criticising - if you don't like it then don't vote for it.

Totally disagree - you have a very closed mind when it comes to differences.
You are blind to what they have achieved positively. I would have a lot more respect for you if you could see things in a bit more perspective.

Ed Miliband is a dull marxoid who can't even make a simple pledge on tuition fees who you are still planning to vote for despite the fact he's not even ruled out more tuition fee rises when his lot gain power again. By the half-baked reply you've given me in this thread I can clearly see that to support the Labour Party for you is now a matter of faith.

Oh you not only know Ed Miliband personally enough to assasinate his charactor you also are a mind reader - nowhere has he said he will raise tuition fees. I don't know what sort of a leader he will be yet. I didn't like Browne but I will keep my options open about who I vote for next time.
Tell me what is so good about raising tuition fees to 9k perhaps you could give your views for a change rather than bombasting other people about theirs and being quite personal about their charactors as well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I pay tuition fees but tripling them is totally out of order. Some contribution is fine.

I agree.

Because they had no plans to cut University fund by 80% which is the reason for tuition fees.

So what would you cut then? was Labour going to cut EU/foreign aid and so forth? no it wasn't.

What evidence have you for this? Absolutely none. Why would they want
disaffected lib dem votes? If you actually listen to Ed Milliband he said it was a BAD DECISION taken by the coalition.

The evidence I have is that Labour are now being two-faced by criticising the Liberal Democrats for breaking an election pledge, we then also have mini-Labour (the NUS) saying things like "the Liberal Democrats will never have the student vote again". So again I would ask, what reason do you have to believe them?

Of course Miliband will say its a bad decision, because he wants students votes - duh!

Your opinion not based on any substance or fact or supported by any person of note. It is universally accepted by all that the banking crisis caused the debt. Yes they are a more state based party and do spend more because that is their priority. What about the 70 billion owed in tax evasion. Any opinion on why that is not going to be persued with vigour?

Look at the green graph because that is absolute rubbish, the bulk of debt was run up by a big state which is spending what it does not have. As for tax evasion, I would ask why Labour also did not persue this tax - which yet again proves my point that they are all the same.

Totally disagree - you have a very closed mind when it comes to differences.
You are blind to what they have achieved positively. I would have a lot more respect for you if you could see things in a bit more perspective.

What do you disagree on exactly? what major policy do the two parties disagree on? find me one and we'll have a chat about it, with anyluck you can prove me wrong on it and i'll gladly concede that you've then found one big difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Oh you not only know Ed Miliband personally enough to assasinate his charactor you also are a mind reader - nowhere has he said he will raise tuition fees. I don't know what sort of a leader he will be yet. I didn't like Browne but I will keep my options open about who I vote for next time.

But he also won't rule out raising tuition fees, which means he's obviously considering it and wouldn't have much of a problem with raising them hence why he won't rule them out. But why won't he say he will raise them I hear you ask? - because like the Liberal Democrats, they want your vote hence why they will not say unpopular things.

Just as the Tories pose before the election 'not to give anymore powers to the EU' and then do exactly that.

Tell me what is so good about raising tuition fees to 9k perhaps you could give your views for a change rather than bombasting other people about theirs and being quite personal about their charactors as well.

I haven't said there is anything good about raising tuition fees and i'm against raising them aswell, i'm merely pointing out that if you are genuinely against them - why would you vote for a party which has just as bad a record as the Liberal Democrats on this issue?

If you vote Lib/Lab/Con then you are essentially voting for this, don't you understand that?

[Inseriousity.]

I don't have a problem with the rise, I'm more concerned about the lack of a cap. I think capped fees - all universities charging the same - at least made every uni the same financially. Even if that cap was to raise to 6000, I could understand that as we're in debt blah blah blah.

Personally, I was not fond of any of the Labour leader contenders. Blair moved a left-wing party closer to the centre expanding on Thatcher's policies of competition etc and Cameron (or possibly someone before him), in an attempt to reestablish the party, moved a right-wing party closer to the centre. They're all the same so I wouldn't be surprised if 'Red Ed' would have raised fees imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't have a problem with the rise, I'm more concerned about the lack of a cap. I think capped fees - all universities charging the same - at least made every uni the same financially. Even if that cap was to raise to 6000, I could understand that as we're in debt blah blah blah.

Personally, I was not fond of any of the Labour leader contenders. Blair moved a left-wing party closer to the centre expanding on Thatcher's policies of competition etc and Cameron (or possibly someone before him), in an attempt to reestablish the party, moved a right-wing party closer to the centre. They're all the same so I wouldn't be surprised if 'Red Ed' would have raised fees imo.

I would argue what Peter Hitchens argues, that for the vast part of the 20th century the Conservative Party has failed in all aspects to oppose Fabian socialism, the Labour Party remains highly idealogically charged while the Conservative Party has all but given in and in some cases actually follows the method of Fabianism which has arisen since the Cold War; socialism by stealth. The only difference now is that the left supports indirect state ownership rather than direct state ownership which the collapse of the Soviet Union ended.

The decade of Blair was so radical that you could probably class it as more radical than the Thatcher government (which was a right wing government, although only in some areas), the Labour Party remains to the left (although does not state this) and the Tory Party is centre right, which is identical to the centre left. If you're interested in the 'merge' though, i'd recommend reading the Cameron Delusion by Peter Hitchens - explains it really well.

What we need is a return of the adversarial political system, where on one hand you would have a real Conservative Party that would stand up and say "Yes we are for British sovereignty, yes we are for prisons and tough sentences, yes we are for the return of the grammar schools and yes we are for lower taxes" which would be matched on the left by left politicians standing up and saying "Yes we are for a European Superstate, yes we are for treating crime as a disease, yes we are in support of the comprehensive system and so on" - but we don't have that, its been lost.

As Hitchens says about conventional wisdom that usually states 'New Labour is right wing'; if you examine it you'll find it is an absurd proposition.

[Conservative,]

They attack it, then say they won't change it (or at least won't commit to it)...I don't mind if they had said "We'll give it a chance" but no they attacked the proposal from the start and now won't condemn it...how stupid.

Again, if they had said "we'll give the proposal a chance, but we don't like the sound of it" I would've said fair enough they never said that they're against it, but they have attacked it and opposed from the start and that's what is wrong. They attack it then refuse to commit to refusing it. That is the height of (I can't remember the right word) hypocrisy? Labour disgust me sometimes -.-